Apple could also just pull out of the UK entirely, fire all their UK employees, and stop buying UK goods and services. I know they won't, but feck all fascist governments.
By that logic, they need to pull out of the USA immediately.
Because Apple is in the US that means they should prop up fascism and a police state?
Not directed at you personally, but people need to learn what fascism is. Fascism is a type of authoritarianism but not authoritarianism is fascism.
Fascism is a far-right system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
The U.K. is capitalist, and we can certainly argue that this would be a stringent movement control the rest of the definition doesn't fit at all. There U.K. isn't governed by the far-right, it isn't a dictatorship, there isn't violent suppression of opposition and the list goes on. So, yeah, not fascism at all
As a member of a follow commonwealth country i’d like to point out that a monarchy is in fact a dictatorship and the spy powers requested then probably back doored to friendly media companies is a form of suppression that is still domestic terrorism even if not directly violent.
Even if the monarchy is useless, feckless and gormless.
given this is coming from the supposedly left wing party it would suggest the right wing religious faction is in command of the party.
Apple should introduce a feature whereby a certain PIN or a certain fingerprint will instantly erase the keys that unlock the data drive. In essence, all user data would be instantly lost forever with the use of the wrong finger or PIN.
This would render moot any law in any jurisdiction that forces users to unlock their phone with a PIN or a fingerprint. Anyone who tries to compel you to unlock a phone would have no idea if you are using the right fingerprint or the right PIN. Ideally, using the wrong PIN would unlock the phone into a "clean" configuration so that they wouldn't even know you/they just cleared the phone.
I think I've been asking for this feature for about ten years, but I don't recall a single person agreeing with me.
Apple should introduce a feature whereby a certain PIN or a certain fingerprint will instantly erase the keys that unlock the data drive. In essence, all user data would be instantly lost forever with the use of the wrong finger or PIN.
This would render moot any law in any jurisdiction that forces users to unlock their phone with a PIN or a fingerprint. Anyone who tries to compel you to unlock a phone would have no idea if you are using the right fingerprint or the right PIN. Ideally, using the wrong PIN would unlock the phone into a "clean" configuration so that they wouldn't even know you/they just cleared the phone.
I think I've been asking for this feature for about ten years, but I don't recall a single person agreeing with me.
I've been wanting a Poisoned PIN since the beginning. Then when Touch ID came out I wanted to be able to use a different finger to cause the secure erase of the device.
Apple should introduce a feature whereby a certain PIN or a certain fingerprint will instantly erase the keys that unlock the data drive. In essence, all user data would be instantly lost forever with the use of the wrong finger or PIN.
This would render moot any law in any jurisdiction that forces users to unlock their phone with a PIN or a fingerprint. Anyone who tries to compel you to unlock a phone would have no idea if you are using the right fingerprint or the right PIN. Ideally, using the wrong PIN would unlock the phone into a "clean" configuration so that they wouldn't even know you/they just cleared the phone.
I think I've been asking for this feature for about ten years, but I don't recall a single person agreeing with me.
I fully agree with this. Would solve the issue quite succinctly.
Apple could also just pull out of the UK entirely, fire all their UK employees, and stop buying UK goods and services. I know they won't, but feck all fascist governments.
By that logic, they need to pull out of the USA immediately.
Because Apple is in the US that means they should prop up fascism and a police state?
Not directed at you personally, but people need to learn what fascism is. Fascism is a type of authoritarianism but not authoritarianism is fascism.
Fascism is a far-right system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
The U.K. is capitalist, and we can certainly argue that this would be a stringent movement control the rest of the definition doesn't fit at all. There U.K. isn't governed by the far-right, it isn't a dictatorship, there isn't violent suppression of opposition and the list goes on. So, yeah, not fascism at all
“Agreed, the UK isn’t there. The US however…”
While what Trump is doing is disturbing, illegal and authoritarian, he is not a fascist. All of the points made by the original poster still apply in the US.
The UK governments request for backdoor access to encrypted data is not necessarily about creating a surveillance state but rather about ensuring law enforcement can access critical information in serious cases, such as terrorism, child exploitation, and organised crime. With encryption making it harder to investigate criminal activity, a controlled backdoor could allow authorities to act swiftly in emergencies, preventing attacks or saving lives. Other intelligence agencies already conduct mass surveillance, so formalising a legal mechanism for targeted access could add accountability.
However, creating a backdoor, even for government use, weakens encryption for everyone. Once a vulnerability exists, it could be exploited by cybercriminals, hostile foreign states, or even rogue officials. Theres also the issue of government overreach historically, surveillance powers have been expanded beyond their original purpose, raising concerns about abuse. Furthermore, if Apple is forced to comply in the UK, other governments, will demand the same, setting a precedent.
A potential compromise could involve strict oversight mechanisms, ensuring backdoor access is only used with court approval and in cases of national security threats. Rather than a universal backdoor, targeted decryption warrants for specific devices or cases may strike a better balance between security and privacy.
If Tim Apple would have cojones he could easily back out from authoritarian Countries like UK, Canada, Germany and China…Focussing just on First World Countries!
The UK governments request for backdoor access to encrypted data is not necessarily about creating a surveillance state but rather about ensuring law enforcement can access critical information in serious cases, such as terrorism, child exploitation, and organised crime. With encryption making it harder to investigate criminal activity, a controlled backdoor could allow authorities to act swiftly in emergencies, preventing attacks or saving lives. Other intelligence agencies already conduct mass surveillance, so formalising a legal mechanism for targeted access could add accountability.
This could be considered flawed logic when we understand that the UK city of London has probably the highest level of surveillance in the form of Government controlled security cameras than any other city in the world. By this logic it should have the lowest level of crime. It clearly does not. These policies, floated on the back of the fare of public harm to the individual, are almost always just another way of the few imposing a policy of control over the masses. Just because it sounds like it will keep people safe doesn’t mean it will not that it is necessary.
Your own great president stated, in effect that it is better for the few to get away with a crime than it is for the citizens to be fearful of their own government and lose freedom.
We all need to remember that and be very afraid when governments forget. Particularly, when groups are actively pushing for a one world government I.e. the WEF. Read their own words from their publications.
Expect to see this happen here in USA with SCOTUS being right wing and having expressed doubts about the right to privacy, starting with abortion and saying the same for sexual acts. They will likely use that reasoning to force Apple to provide a "backdoor".
The right to privacy simply does not exist with conservatives where they believe in imposing structure and control over people and their behaviors to their whims.
Similar things were already happening under Obama. Hence Snowden. Barking up the wrong tree.
LOL...the wrong tree? All the files that Snowden provided to Glen Greenwald for the articles he wrote were pre-2006 Patriot Act era. In other words, the era before Congress got rid of the worst abuses of the Patriot Act like warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush was president at the time, not Obama. The Snowden stuff was really just a repackaging of the complaints that came out about the Patriot Act at the time it was passed + a layer of conspiracy theorizing on top. And the Patriot Act was primarily driven by the GOP.
Plus you now have the Laken Riley Act, which takes the loss of due process for anyone charged with terrorism (i.e., indefinite detainment) and applies it to undocumented immigrants charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. The problem there is that the loss of due process for people charged with terrorism was based on the idea that they were a national security threat. Undocumented immigrants are not a national security threat.
Expect to see this happen here in USA with SCOTUS being right wing and having expressed doubts about the right to privacy, starting with abortion and saying the same for sexual acts. They will likely use that reasoning to force Apple to provide a "backdoor".
The right to privacy simply does not exist with conservatives where they believe in imposing structure and control over people and their behaviors to their whims.
Similar things were already happening under Obama. Hence Snowden. Barking up the wrong tree.
LOL...the wrong tree? All the files that Snowden provided to Glen Greenwald for the articles he wrote were pre-2006 Patriot Act era. In other words, the era before Congress got rid of the worst abuses of the Patriot Act like warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush was president at the time, not Obama. The Snowden stuff was really just a repackaging of the complaints that came out about the Patriot Act at the time it was passed + a layer of conspiracy theorizing on top. And the Patriot Act was primarily driven by the GOP.
Plus you now have the Laken Riley Act, which takes the loss of due process for anyone charged with terrorism (i.e., indefinite detainment) and applies it to undocumented immigrants charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. The problem there is that the loss of due process for people charged with terrorism was based on the idea that they were a national security threat. Undocumented immigrants are not a national security threat.
1) Reminds of a clip I saw wheee some MAGA guy was blaming Obama for 9/11. LOL
2) Rallying sycophantic idiots to overthrow a free and fair election because you were so weak to accept the outcome is what I call a national security threat.
Apple could also just pull out of the UK entirely, fire all their UK employees, and stop buying UK goods and services. I know they won't, but feck all fascist governments.
By that logic, they need to pull out of the USA immediately.
Because Apple is in the US that means they should prop up fascism and a police state?
Not directed at you personally, but people need to learn what fascism is. Fascism is a type of authoritarianism but not authoritarianism is fascism.
Fascism is a far-right system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
The U.K. is capitalist, and we can certainly argue that this would be a stringent movement control the rest of the definition doesn't fit at all. There U.K. isn't governed by the far-right, it isn't a dictatorship, there isn't violent suppression of opposition and the list goes on. So, yeah, not fascism at all
“Agreed, the UK isn’t there. The US however…”
While what Trump is doing is disturbing, illegal and authoritarian, he is not a fascist.
Experts on fascism — i.e., people who have studied fascism extensively and know exactly what it is and isn't — disagree with you. Here's one who changed his mind on the issue to declare that Trump is a fascist.
Expect to see this happen here in USA with SCOTUS being right wing and having expressed doubts about the right to privacy, starting with abortion and saying the same for sexual acts. They will likely use that reasoning to force Apple to provide a "backdoor".
The right to privacy simply does not exist with conservatives where they believe in imposing structure and control over people and their behaviors to their whims.
Similar things were already happening under Obama. Hence Snowden. Barking up the wrong tree.
LOL...the wrong tree? All the files that Snowden provided to Glen Greenwald for the articles he wrote were pre-2006 Patriot Act era. In other words, the era before Congress got rid of the worst abuses of the Patriot Act like warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush was president at the time, not Obama. The Snowden stuff was really just a repackaging of the complaints that came out about the Patriot Act at the time it was passed + a layer of conspiracy theorizing on top. And the Patriot Act was primarily driven by the GOP.
Plus you now have the Laken Riley Act, which takes the loss of due process for anyone charged with terrorism (i.e., indefinite detainment) and applies it to undocumented immigrants charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. The problem there is that the loss of due process for people charged with terrorism was based on the idea that they were a national security threat. Undocumented immigrants are not a national security threat.
Expect to see this happen here in USA with SCOTUS being right wing and having expressed doubts about the right to privacy, starting with abortion and saying the same for sexual acts. They will likely use that reasoning to force Apple to provide a "backdoor".
The right to privacy simply does not exist with conservatives where they believe in imposing structure and control over people and their behaviors to their whims.
Similar things were already happening under Obama. Hence Snowden. Barking up the wrong tree.
LOL...the wrong tree? All the files that Snowden provided to Glen Greenwald for the articles he wrote were pre-2006 Patriot Act era. In other words, the era before Congress got rid of the worst abuses of the Patriot Act like warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush was president at the time, not Obama. The Snowden stuff was really just a repackaging of the complaints that came out about the Patriot Act at the time it was passed + a layer of conspiracy theorizing on top. And the Patriot Act was primarily driven by the GOP.
Plus you now have the Laken Riley Act, which takes the loss of due process for anyone charged with terrorism (i.e., indefinite detainment) and applies it to undocumented immigrants charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. The problem there is that the loss of due process for people charged with terrorism was based on the idea that they were a national security threat. Undocumented immigrants are not a national security threat.
You appear to be confused about warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping DOMESTICALLY. Meaning they were targeting people inside the borders of the United States, either citizens or non-citizens. That practice was ended in January of 2007. The article that you posted is in regards to INTERNATIONAL warrantless wiretaps where the target is outside the borders of the United States.
The difference is that DOMESTIC wiretapping always required warrants prior to what George W. Bush did. That's not the case with INTERNATIONAL wiretaps.
"FISA distinguishes between U.S. persons and foreigners, between communications inside and outside the U.S., and between wired and wireless communications. Wired communications within the United States are protected, since intercepting them requires a warrant,[47] but there is no regulation of US wiretapping elsewhere."
This is an example of what was so stupid about most of the Snowden coverage. Snowden claimed he was concerned about Constitutional rights violations but the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply outside of U.S. territory. There's nothing scandalous about the United States doing warrantless wiretaps of foreign targets.
What if Apple ignores the UK demand? What would the UK do? Issue a fine? Wouldn't Apple have to divulge the fine in SEC filings? The UK would be blowing its cover in that case.
What if Apple ignores the UK demand? What would the UK do? Issue a fine? Wouldn't Apple have to divulge the fine in SEC filings? The UK would be blowing its cover in that case.
Comments
given this is coming from the supposedly left wing party it would suggest the right wing religious faction is in command of the party.
This would render moot any law in any jurisdiction that forces users to unlock their phone with a PIN or a fingerprint. Anyone who tries to compel you to unlock a phone would have no idea if you are using the right fingerprint or the right PIN. Ideally, using the wrong PIN would unlock the phone into a "clean" configuration so that they wouldn't even know you/they just cleared the phone.
I think I've been asking for this feature for about ten years, but I don't recall a single person agreeing with me.
The UK governments request for backdoor access to encrypted data is not necessarily about creating a surveillance state but rather about ensuring law enforcement can access critical information in serious cases, such as terrorism, child exploitation, and organised crime. With encryption making it harder to investigate criminal activity, a controlled backdoor could allow authorities to act swiftly in emergencies, preventing attacks or saving lives. Other intelligence agencies already conduct mass surveillance, so formalising a legal mechanism for targeted access could add accountability.
However, creating a backdoor, even for government use, weakens encryption for everyone. Once a vulnerability exists, it could be exploited by cybercriminals, hostile foreign states, or even rogue officials. Theres also the issue of government overreach historically, surveillance powers have been expanded beyond their original purpose, raising concerns about abuse. Furthermore, if Apple is forced to comply in the UK, other governments, will demand the same, setting a precedent.
A potential compromise could involve strict oversight mechanisms, ensuring backdoor access is only used with court approval and in cases of national security threats. Rather than a universal backdoor, targeted decryption warrants for specific devices or cases may strike a better balance between security and privacy.
Plus you now have the Laken Riley Act, which takes the loss of due process for anyone charged with terrorism (i.e., indefinite detainment) and applies it to undocumented immigrants charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. The problem there is that the loss of due process for people charged with terrorism was based on the idea that they were a national security threat. Undocumented immigrants are not a national security threat.
2) Rallying sycophantic idiots to overthrow a free and fair election because you were so weak to accept the outcome is what I call a national
security threat.
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652
From 2015
“New Snowden Documents Reveal Obama Administration Expanded NSA Spying”
https://time.com/3909293/edward-snowden-obama-nsa-spying/The difference is that DOMESTIC wiretapping always required warrants prior to what George W. Bush did. That's not the case with INTERNATIONAL wiretaps.
"FISA distinguishes between U.S. persons and foreigners, between communications inside and outside the U.S., and between wired and wireless communications. Wired communications within the United States are protected, since intercepting them requires a warrant,[47] but there is no regulation of US wiretapping elsewhere."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiretapping#Pakistan
This is an example of what was so stupid about most of the Snowden coverage. Snowden claimed he was concerned about Constitutional rights violations but the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply outside of U.S. territory. There's nothing scandalous about the United States doing warrantless wiretaps of foreign targets.